Hitting the Strawman is attacking the points of someone's argument rather than the argument itself. By attacking the evidence itself, you are not debating what the argument is, and instead going off on an irrellevent tangent.
As you can see here, OFJ is knocking down my example instead of the argument. A better strategy would have been to place an alternate example that argued my main statement.[/quote]
This is good, but isn't the only way to strawman. You can also attack a strawman by failing to address the argument put forth by your opponent. An excellent example is the classic 'If evolution is real, why are there still X', which attacks a false construction of the evolutionary theory.
Here, Z is not contributing anything to the Debate-at-hand. He's simply knocking down Booger's grammar (horrible as it was in the example) without arguing her point: if the Bible is such a holy and great book, why is its main character, YHWH, such an ass to people?
It's worth pointing out that one CAN be an ass and insult another debater, without it being an Ad Hominem, provided that the insult is not used in place of an actual argument. It's still rude, but it's not an Ad Hominem.